About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Avalos 3, Puc 3, A-g 3, California 2, Steve Morton 1, Kim 1, United States Senate 1, Angela 1, John Gibner 1, Ada 1, Chu 1, The City 1, San Francisco 1, Pucac 1, Us 1, Lee 1, Mr. Richie 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 22, 2012
    9:00 - 9:30pm PST  

9:00pm
committee, schedule a hearing, the committee chair shall schedule a hearing to occur within 30 days of the request unless the author agrees to later hearing. it is not occur within 30 days, the author can at roll call for introduction of the next board meeting request that the matter be agendized for the full board, and that will happen in the following board meeting. those are two thoughts and proposals that i have. the fact is that this is not the united states senate; we have a much more democratic board and i think that if someone wants an agenda item, it should be agendized and we should have more time to know what the tentative draft agenda is so the members of the committee can be as prepared as possible.
9:01pm
>> supervisor kim: a question to the city attorney. of these amendments substantive? >> you can act on these today and forward to the board. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'm fine with the new rule, 3.61. i have a question for the clerk on that one. it seems like as a legislative aide who work on the developing of agendas they are readily shared in advance. i have not been a part of how these agendas come up; has there been an issue where board members requested an advance copy of the agenda and was not able to get that? that seems to be to be pretty standard practice to get agendas out when requested. >> supervisor avalos, from time to time there have been problems with supervisor requesting the chair to
9:02pm
provide them with versions of the agenda perhaps before it is finalized so they could know what is on that document to be prepared for the items that could come up. it is i think the new rules, 3.61, the supervisor indicated that he realizes it would not be a binding agenda. traditionally we don't approve our agendas until approximately 4 days before the hearings to make ready for the posting and publishing deadlines. seven days advanced that could be a significant change from what you see on day seven to the actual hearing. the order of the items, the items themselves. supervisor is aware of that. from time to time supervisors, members of the committee want to know what is on the draft agenda. it is the chairs authority
9:03pm
currently not to share that but working with the members, many supervisors have. >> thank you. on the second rule, i'm not necessarily comfortable with approving that now. i could support the second one on the page, 3.6.1 i am not comfortable right now supporting rule 3.3.5 >> supervisor kim: i like to ask a question to the clerk. is the author request that the item be heard, what is the process? >> it is required that the 30 day rule be applied on an item
9:04pm
in an ordinance. that 30 days has to toll before the 3.3.5 rule kicks in. this is not changing substantively what we are currently doing; you are just verifying what the current process is. >> right now my understanding is that it is two consecutive 30 day periods, several months before you could even do instruction of the board to pull something out that has not been heard. this would tighten that up. >> to the original 30 day rule? >> yeah. >> the original 30 day rule, meaning 30 days goes by, and
9:05pm
then at the request of the author it can be scheduled as a full board. >> right now as i understand the rules, this is for no hearing having occurred as opposed to something sitting in the committee having been heard, if there are no hearings scheduled, it has to be heard at the full board. if it has not been heard the next 30 days, this would change it to - and i'm not trying to violate the 30 day rule - if you make a request say a week or two after the introduction saying that this be calendared within 30 days unless you agree to a longer period.
9:06pm
if they don't do so the author has the option to instruct that it be pulled to the full board. tightens up the time period. >> madam chair? >> yes? >> the only issue i see with that is that the chair would not have the authority the schedule it during that first 30 days because it is under the 30 day rule. the supervisor would want to chair to schedule it right away, meaning when they could start scheduling it. it does minimize the chair's authority to schedule items in their time frame, and the consideration of al l they have going on. >> supervisor kim: i don't think that it is political to do so, is out of logistical issues. for example land-use has a lot of items; sometimes i like to
9:07pm
spread out over time. i would not like to take that discretion away. i would like to know that after the 30 day hold, the author of a measure can they request if they feel that it is not being heard. we never want items to never get scheduled for those reasons. and have to support 3.6.1 as well; supervisor avalos, i don't think it hurts to share draft agendas 7 days in advance. >> i'm happy to go 1 for 2.
9:08pm
>> i like to open this for comment at this time. >> i might need 3 minutes, i need to cover 4 items. i have not seen the proposed amendments. are they available to the public? from the discussion that you just had on the proposed rule, 3.6.1, this draft agenda shared with all committee members that makes it a public record and subject to disclosure upon request. i don't know that changes your thinking about the role. right now it is as much a problem for members of the public what may be an agenda as well as for other members of the board. of the members of the public don't get agendas until friday afternoon for the following week. if you don't know what is coming up at land-use, or rules, or budget, you don't know. i appreciate the discussion on
9:09pm
rule 3.3.5 the board's rules are complicated and trying to understand the relationship between 3.3.5 and 3.3.2 is important. i appreciate the discussion you had about that. those comments on proposed rule 4.1.9 and i believe you spoke to that at the last hearing, if you could turn to that, that is the order of presentations before the board. i would like to see the order change to the person supporting the appellant, second bullet would become the fourth bullet and that they would have the opportunity to speak after the agency representative and the leader of the opposition granting the appeals of the members of the public might be informed as to their testimony by the agency presentation and
9:10pm
the leader of the opposition as it were. i think that is a change that you can make today. >> supervisor kim: you had one more point? >> yes. i have reviewed the rules extensively; i was not prepared to share this with you today. i have been with conversation with angela and kay. i hope that the next time there is a rule revision there are substantive changes. the language is archaic. there are a few inconsistencies. when you look at the city and schools district committee prior to march 1, 2013, will have another opportunity to take serious times in the rules. i may be the only one but i think the rules of the board actually matter. >> supervisor kim: appreciate your being here. always. maybe the city attorney john
9:11pm
gibner, if you could respond to the first question. if it is shared with all three members, is it a public record that could be open for discussion? >> i am not sure that that is the answer, or what the status is between the clerk's office and the individuals. >> i don't know what the answer is. if this is a public document i would imagine that the draft going back and forth between the committee and the clerk would be a public document and perhaps the draft agenda sitting on an aide's desk to be a public document. i do know that this would change this. it either is or not.
9:12pm
>> i can't think of any reason why those documents are not public. i can't think of any off the top of my head. >> supervisor kim: thank you. any other comments? we had a motion to amend, 3.6.1, already read into the record, allows the committee member to request that a committee chaired share a draft agenda at least seven days in advance of the committee meeting. we can take that motion to amend without opposition. (gavel). motion to move this item forward. >> so moved. with recommendations. >> supervisor kim: we can do that again without opposition. (gavel) >> i want to commend the clerk of the board for your covering this and bring in your language to our rules and i look forward to january 8 we
9:13pm
can begin implement them. thanks. >> supervisor kim: ditto. i appreciate the legislative aide engaged in this process as well. at this time may i entertain a motion before that, is there any public comment on item 7? >> on item 7, david -- i have reviewed the proposed settlement agreement among other things. i am now the chair of the water subcommittee of the pucac, we had a few presentations back. it settles the matter between the city and the club to the
9:14pm
extent that it allows for and contemplate environmental remediation of the area that the club has been using now and in the future. c that is to the good. it appears to settle the legal issues that i am more concerned about environmental remediation i'm hoping that you will discuss in close session how those provisions work in the access to the club's liability coverage. this appears to be a fair settlement between the parties. with appreciation to -- [indiscernible] and others who worked heavily on this. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you mr. topel [sounds like]. >> my name is steve morton, involved with [indiscernible] for 12-14 years, it seems like a lifetime. it seemed significant progress,
9:15pm
the ability to free up 12-14 acres in the city for broad forms of recreation and habitat restoration. we haven't had access to the property for generations now. the puc does have a watershed report that they commissioned with broad public comment. i would like to have the supervisors ask mr. richie whether they concur with the operation to bring forward a stakeholders in this project's report, which has been broadly reviewed in the community, and apply under the tutelage of the puc the 2 million dollars in the recently adopted bond. i think it is appropriate that
9:16pm
the puc as the land owner be the lead agency for the expenditure of that money on the recreation programs and habitat programs that could be, that are in the puc's report. they are the active operators. the recreation department has been largely absent for decades. so, i think is a puc is the owner, the rightful group, they should be responsible to apply the 2 million dollars. >> supervisor kim: the public comment is closed. i like to entertain a motion to convene to close session.
9:17pm
i would l >> hello, we are back from a quick recess. the budget and finance committee. we completed items 1-9. and so we will be resuming the rest of the agenda. i believe that we have the moscini items left. and to my understanding that they are okay with us calling item 12 out of the order, is that correct? okay. mr. clerk, call item 12 please. >> item 12. >> thank you, this item is
9:18pm
brought to us by supervisor kim. do you have opening comments to make? >> i do, because we have many members of the public that have been waiting for a long time. i want to get to the presentation. this is a discussion i brought up back in the budget cycle in june of this year. how we were to absolutely fund our essential services, whether our public schools. and given the cuts from the state and federal level. i know that many of our services and departments have received cuts. but it's important for the families and youth to give them support to succeed. and this supplemental is from discussions over the months. to allow how the funds are best utilized to ensure success. and our superintendent, richard,
9:19pm
his first year as our superintendent. i am excited to see you in leadership at sfsub. >> thank you, for the opportunity to be here, this is a truly an honor. as i go around the community and talk about the partnership we have with the city of san francisco. it is truly an honor to be here and share some information with you. we would like to do this afternoon is share information around a-g, and a critically need for the school district. which is graduating our school students. and graduating students that are prepared for post-secondary education. as we know that education is part of the fabric of this community. as an overview of what we will present this afternoon. i would like to give you a contents of a-g requirements and the status of the first
9:20pm
graduating class that will have to meet the a-g requirements. i have colleagues here who will talk about the budget. that will give you an update on our budget status and how the budget cuts have affected our a-g progress. and our assistance high school principal will talk about concrete immediate actions associated with this appropriation. with that by way of context the board of education approved a policy in 2009 to raise the graduation requirements so all students graduating from the school system would meet uclg requirements. that was gone so that once they gra grade -- graduate and receive university admission. the policy was that equity and
9:21pm
goals should be for all students. and the class of 2014 is the first class to graduate with these new high school requirements. this year's high school juniors. but what is sad at the same time. in 2009 to the present when the policy was passed. the district has had over $77 million in cuts to funding. that devastated the district's ability to provide the safety net that every student is on track for a-g. and we have been impacted through this action plan. i receive the question if the passage of prop 30 fix it. there are no new funds with prop 30. what it does is stabilize the base. and the base is an old base. it's not restoring anything. it's starting the hemorrhaging,
9:22pm
if you will. >> before you go forward. i think what is not clear to me. so i understand that the a-g graduation policy was put in place by the school board previously. i think that many members of the board supported that concept as well. when you say that the funding cuts have hampered the progress of a-g. i am not sure what that means. what would a-g or creating that requirement mean? would the school district have to increase instruction or what is not moved forward? >> thank you for that question, supervisor chu. i mean there is a safety net to increase the rigors for graduation. there is a higher bar to get a diploma. and associated with that is a series of safety nets to get
9:23pm
this rigorous diploma. part of that it eliminated seven periods, and now our high schools have six periods per day that a student can take as a full class load. and when you eliminate classes and that eliminates the periods. and if a student doesn't do well in an a-g class and the elimination of a period prevents them from taking that class again. and we had to eliminate all evening school options for our students. we eliminated summer school options for the students. so there is a number of constraints that we would have continued to fund and have limited to students because of the decreased funding associated with the funding of the school
9:24pm
district. and coincided with this a-g policy. we will share more details with you throughout the presentation. and at this point i would like to ask deputy superintendent lee take us through the slides and the budget and the current state and how that affects this potential appropriation. >> thank you, superintendent and thank you supervisors. i will speak to one slide, it's a story, it's a graph that tells an important story about the history of our funding over the last five years. and some of you i believe have seen this before. so i appreciate you indulging me. and this revenue funding is the primary source of funding for school districts in california.
9:25pm
most school districts including ours. and the left of that chart is from fy-2007-08. and it show that is we received on per unit average daily attendance funding of 5776 per student. six years ago. and the top line, the blue line shows what the state should have funded per unit of ada to meet their statutory cost of living adjustments. that's based on a formula in statute. and it's representing what we should receive year to year. you see from 07-08 from that level of 5776, cola did increase
9:26pm
each year. and in 12-13, the current fiscal year, we should receive $6,697 per unit of ada or student. and that has not happened. and what has happened is the orange line. that shows the actual. not inflation adjusted. just the actual amount of revenue funding we have received for each student. instead of going up and matching the blue line or even staying flat. matching the purple line. we have seen significant reductions shown by the orange line. we went from 5776 to 5326, a steep drop in the following year, 09-10. and a little loss recovered but then treading water since then.
9:27pm
that last line, 12-13 where it splits between the 5204 and the 4764 level, that represents the outcome of prop 30. if it had not passed, we would have additional reduction of more than $400 per student in the middle of the fiscal year. because it passed, we are able to avoid the cuts and maintain the funding we had last year. but it's not an increase in funding compared to prior years. this orange line started off at important but not cataclysmic different or short fall from the statutory funding levels in 08-09. but that widened, this gap has
9:28pm
widened. and when the superintendent mentioned we have a $77 million gap. now if you compare the 6997 that we should receive. and 5204 that we are receiving. you multiply by the total population of the district, that's $77 million less we are receiving than from the state this year. this will probably occur for the foreseeable future. this is really the best encapsalation of what the state, how far the state has fallen short for funding of schools for the last four to five years. if you take the gap from 5776 level in 07-08, and the difference each year and added compared to the purple line, flat funding.
9:29pm
we have lost $146 million of these funds since 07-08. just in terms of maintaining a baseline that it would be far short of the state's responsibility to fully fund education. another term for this gap between the blue and orange lines is the deficit factor. it's a term in california school of finance. and that is now over 22%. so for every dollar of baseline revenues we should be receiving, we are receiving 78 cents of funding. and that is being scored and tabulated each year by the state. and it is hopefully going to be restored over time. but in the past six years we have been making do with the resources you see on this chart. >> just to clarify, that's the projected statutory cola, the difference between that and